Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 28th Jul 2007 09:04 UTC
Linux "People who think SD was 'perfect' were simply ignoring reality," Linus Torvalds began in a succinct explanation as to why he chose the CFS scheduler written by Ingo Molnar instead of the SD scheduler written by Con Kolivas. He continued, "sadly, that seemed to include Con too, which was one of the main reasons that I never [entertained] the notion of merging SD for very long at all: Con ended up arguing against people who reported problems, rather than trying to work with them." He went on to stress the importance of working toward a solution that is good for everyone, "that was where the SD patches fell down. They didn't have a maintainer that I could trust to actually care about any other issues than his own." Update: OSNews user superstoned pointed us to the other side of the story.
Thread beginning with comment 258905
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

LOL. What is wrong with Linux's ACPI implementation?

Reply Parent Score: 1

hobgoblin Member since:

it depends. is its the kernels job of fixing hardware quirks/bugs in the ACPI support?

hell, at one time linus showed a strong dislike for ACPI as its kinda like a programing language in its own right. this was stated when people started talking about intels bios replacement (the one that apple use in their X86 macs) that had a similar design.

Reply Parent Score: 2

stestagg Member since:

It's the kernel's job to work properly, and to interface well with the hardware. Wether or not ACPI has been implemented badly in BIOSs, you can't just throw up your hands and cry 'it wasn't me'.

Reply Parent Score: 2